Tuesday, June 26, 2012

The more equations a paper has, the less it will be cited by other biologists. This should come as a surprise to few people, but if it does, Fig.1 from Fawcett and Higginson (2012) makes this pretty clear. Papers with many equations per page are cited less often by non-theoretical papers (A). In fact, citations by non-theoretical papers decrease by 35% for each additional equation per page. This is not true of theoretical papers, which happily cite other equation-filled theoretical works (B). It’s an interesting conundrum: theory unifies empirical observations and generates predictions, but theory uses equations. And papers with equations have less impact.

The authors make suggestions for both sides of this divide.
All biologists should have adequate mathematical training so that equations are
not necessarily considered daunting or confusing. Theoreticians should strive
to communicate their works in accessible ways (something Steve Ellner covered
nicely in the aptly named “How to write a theoretical ecology paper that people will cite”).
The authors also suggest increased placement of equations in appendices, where
they do not decrease citation rates. (However, if equations don’t decrease
citation rates when in the appendix, you wonder if this is because equations
are easier to ignore there). The surprising thing about this bias
is that I don’t think it exists as much in the other direction. Theoretical papers
generally do cite empirical works. Reviewers frequently require that model assumptions
be justified based on empirical knowledge. A balance between theory and empiricism seems important for ecology, and while this paper doesn't tell us anything surprising, it makes it quite clear that there is a problem.

Thursday, June 14, 2012

In Malcolm Gladwell’s “The Tipping Point”
he describes how information is disseminated. It takes three types of people: a collector,
a connector and a persuader. As a research scientist, I am familiar with being
a collector. I have spent years reading papers, testing hypotheses and
validating assumptions to develop a personal understanding of fisheries and
ecology. Until recently, I was content to let my perspectives circulate among a
small group of colleagues. Until recently, I did not see a need to address the
connector or persuader in my academic life. But I do now. I am not an advocate. I have on occasion
written a letter to my MP, signed a petition or joined a protest but always as
a follower of those who, I felt, were much better suited for it. And this is because on
most political issues I am as informed as the news/internet media will allow me
to be. So when somebody with some good insight steps forward, I’m more likely
to egg them on then run with their thunder.

But recently I have found myself to be one
with insight. It was a startling moment. Natural Resource Minister Joe Oliver was
on the news plugging the dismantling of Canada’s environmental legislation.
He’d said that our environmental safeguards held up badly needed economic
development and as an example he used Enbridge’s Gateway Pipeline. I had worked
on the environmental permitting for that pipeline, and I didn’t agree with him. Working as an environmental consultant in
Alberta was a wonderful life spent on deserted oil roads assessing fish habitat
and negotiating permits for industrial development. Over that time I observed
first hand that Canada’s environmental laws did not hold up pipelines, mines or
bridge crossings any longer than the lengthy processes of engineering, surveying,
contracting or First Nation consultation. Environmental permits typically cost
a small fraction of the total development, were often acquired concurrently
with the general planning process, and were unquestionably necessary to protect
the health of the natural resources that belong to all Albertans and Canadians.
Beyond my first hand experiences, I found no independent studies that could
back up Minister Oliver’s statement. In fact, in a series of papers examining
Canadian and American environmental legislation, their overall effect on the
economy was determined to be either “overstated” or even “a net benefit”.

It is difficult not to be emotionally
invested when ideals and institutes you believe in get torn down. I found that many Canadians including environmentalists, economists,
politicians and advocates were appearing on the news, writing op-eds and tweeting
their concerns. Their seat in this public debate was one earned from decades of
being public figures, which connected them to a wide network and taught them
how to engage those around them. I realized my opportunity was to share my
insights with them, and provide more substance to their thunder. I researched
further the economic role of environmental legislation in Canada and canvased
old colleagues from consulting firms on permit wait times. Next, I began to
share. I put out these insights to my own social and professional network. I
was amazed by how quickly people responded. With one LinkedIn post and an email
to 75 contacts I received responses from most of my immediate contacts, but
also from people across the country that I had never met. I heard from
collectors who shared their insights with me, connectors who forwarded mine on,
and persuaders who were still appearing in the news. I was amazed and heartened
by how quickly an insight could spread.

Insight is a powerful and rare commodity, because
it can comment on current issues yet is not necessarily advocacy. For example, eminent researcher David Schindler’s paper on oil sands contamination was not advocacy; it was
insight into contaminant levels in the Athabasca River. Yet the paper sent
shockwaves through a political system that had been repeating for over a decade
that the oil sands had a clean record and was picked up by advocates who
further publicized it. It can gain such traction because there is a vacuum of
objective facts and concrete statements in today’s political theater. Over the
last few decades our political leaders have increasingly changed their dialogue
to reflect emotional, persuasive and ideology driven statements. For example, in Canada Ministers Kent, Ashfield and Oliver discuss “protecting” our “valuable”
species, and “modernizing” our legislation. Other ministers present economic or
foreign affairs in similar vague terms. This type of dialogue puts a new onus
on economists and scientists to share their perspectives beyond the academic
walls. It seems like an insurmountable hurdle as many of us are not connectors
or persuaders, but the traction for a pure nugget of insight may surprise you. So
I encourage you all to keep collecting but to also start sharing beyond our
academic circles, where your contribution may be more meaningful that you realize.